Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 July 30

< July 29	July 31 >

July 30 edit

Template:Deadpeoplelinks edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deadpeoplelinks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template contains a long list of external links added to the bottom of multiple articles. Most of these contravene WP:ELNO and WP:NOTDIR. Each death in the article to which this template is attached should be able to be stand on its own as it should be properly references. Therefore this template is redundant and it should be deleted. Simple Bob (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Non-free Dutch-politician-photo edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Magioladitis (talk) 08:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free Dutch-politician-photo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is no longer used, there is nothing special about non-free images of Dutch politicians that require a special tag, and having the tag migth give someone the false impression that such images are generaly acceptable. In the rare case where such an image do satisfy all the nessesary policy criteria a more generic non-free license tag will do just fine. There is a "soft redirect" at Template:Dutch-politician-photo that should be deleted also. --Sherool (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as creator of the template. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:2009 flu pandemic table in Thailand edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was subst and then delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2009 flu pandemic table in Thailand (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single purpose template. Unlikely to be used somewhere else except the one article is used right now. I suggest subst and delete. Magioladitis (talk) 07:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please note the existence of a similar template... Template:2009 swine flu outbreak in the Philippines table ... that you might consider looking at as well. 76.66.192.64 (talk) 09:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subst & delete no reason for this to be a template. --Sherool (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox True Blood season one edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 04:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox True Blood season one (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphan. Consists only of redirects to the same article. Magioladitis (talk) 07:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant. Awickert (talk) 02:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unuseful list now that the articles have been redirected to the main article. It's not an infobox despite the name, by the way. Jafeluv (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Beerware edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep - no support for deletion. JPG-GR (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Beerware (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As humorous as this license is, it is not an acceptable image copyright for Wikipedia. No permission is given in the "beerware license" to sublicense the work and without that viral permission, this is not an acceptable free license for Wikipedia purposes. B (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"You can do whatever you want with this stuff". In good faith, keep. ViperSnake151 Talk 18:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The right to "sub-license" is different and needs to be explicitly spelled out. I can do whatever I want, but can I authorize someone else to do whatever they want? No such authority is granted under the terms of this template. This is an important legal distinction and one that I encounter almost daily in my profession. --B (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need a sublicense if we construe this license like the GNU General Public License, which spells out why a sublicense is not necessary: "Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License." The text of Beerwarev42 specifies only two parties: the author and "you", which I interpret as the owner of a copy, and "you" are obligated to "retain this notice", or convey the license text along with the work. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 22:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd be more worried about interactions with Islamic law and national drinking age laws unless ${\sqrt {beer}}$ is legally close enough to beer. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 22:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 07:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep does no harm, just a good faith request from the author to whoever finds it useful. In fact, I may add it to some of my works. --Bsay~~USD~~CSU[ π ] 20:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Lemmings Stages edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Magioladitis (talk) 09:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lemmings Stages (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another orphaned all-redlink navbox. The only link that works is the one to Lemmings (video game); the link to "Stage list of Lemmings" is red, as are the 120 links for the stages themselves (except for two that each link to an unrelated article with a coincidentally similar name). It seems unlikely that there ever will be individual articles for each stage of Lemmings. —Paul A (talk) 07:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kill it quickly. Nothing but a WP:LINKFARM, and I can't see how any of these could have any potential as standalone articles, especially given that many of the later levels are merely repeats of earlier ones with different skillsets. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kill it with fire The fact that the template was last modified over half a year ago, and has never had anything but redlinks should make this self-explanatory. Wow. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 02:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. If anyone wanted to do anything with this, they would have already. Awickert (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe per WP:SNOW but it doesn't fit the WP:CSD#Templates criteria. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 03:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Masonpatriot (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Emergency Committee edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy delete as orphaned and per recent discussions on the plentiful 1632-related templates. JPG-GR (talk) 05:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Emergency Committee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

another inappropriate 1632 anti-wiki-linking template, now orphaned. delete. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 05:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.